Shock: The new documentary about Mitt Romney looks … really good

posted at 11:21 am on December 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s early for a palate cleanser but I’m not sure this doesn’t qualify as legit news. I … did not expect to find myself eager to revisit the Romney 2012 campaign on film, but here we are, my friends. Here we are.

It’s true that the trailer is more humanizing than anything Romney’s campaign did for him, but the deck is stacked. The bio video that the GOP produced for the convention was solid but nothing as stage-managed as campaign propaganda will ever have the disarming charm of behind-the-scenes footage of the candidates in unguarded moments. Plus, the trailer’s cheating by putting the agony of defeat up front. Watching this guy try to hold it together while struggling with the weight of defeat, surrounded by his wife, kids, and grandkids, would melt the heart of anyone who doesn’t work at MSNBC. He seems … so lifelike. So incredibly lifelike.

I’m going to say two words to you. A la Ron Burgundy, if you like it you can take it, if you don’t you can send it right back: Romney/Cruz?

I”m gonna say that Romney/Cruz would, in fact, melt the Republican party completely….

Though to be fair, it’s actually a solid ticket. Cruz has the ideas, and Romney has the actual executive experience chops. Romney’s still a better manager than any senator we have. And after the Obamacare/NSA disaster, people might be in the mood for a “heartless conservative manager” to take on the Federal government.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Why not? Romney doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet (seriously– the roof riding dog was the worst anyone could find). I doubt Cruz has much, either. They both graduated from Elite schools, so the “They be dumb” charge won’t work. And with the Democratic party showing gross, gross, utter incompetence in governing, a “heartless technocrat” who no one can accuse of being incompetent wouldn’t be bad at all.

That is, as long as they get it together on the whole campaigning bit and fire Steve Schmidt. Get a REAL campaign staff together.

Romney is a good man, so any serious look at him will show him well. One advantage over Obama.

Too bad he ran an incompetent campaign, and too bad he had as his signal achievement the millstone “RomneyCare” that is presently destroying Massachusetts. He left us with President Obama, so I’m still mad at him.

It actually would make electoral sense for Romney to run again. He’s pre-vetted, and he already convinced almost half the country to vote for him, he’d just need to convince 3% more.

Jon0815 on December 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Um, no. He’d have to convince more than that, to offset the people that voted for him last time that are now swearing to never vote for another GOP squish, and similarly swearing to not vote GOP *period*, so long as they continue to be at war with the base.

Mitt will be the new “Reagan” for liberals.
As a political opponent he was absolutely villified. In defeat or out of office they will wistfully recall them and wonder why modern conservatives can’t be like they used to.

I’m wondering–there’s been rumblings that in fact Romney DID win, but the vote fraud, etc kept him out.

What happens if that ever gets proven? Because I for one don’t know that we will have another election, because Obama isn’t going to go quietly into that good night. Remember, when liberals shriek stuff about Conservatives, it’s because they do it themselves. And they were all shrieking about Bush being a dictator and never leaving. So you know they have that planned out.

What if Romney was the last chance we had and it’s gonna be a while before we can vote again?

I can easily see a Republican tidal wave washing out the Dems in congress next year… and sometime in December a national “crisis” that prevents the swearing in of the new members, blah blah. And boom, the only thing left is the 2nd Amendment.

The flip flops are a serious issue of character, it’s not like he flipped on a couple issues but every single major one from abortion, to gun rights, to so called gay rights, to support for Reagan, to Climate change. He even contradicted himself about whether he wanted to serve in Vietnam or not, but the one issue he stood firm on was Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.

As the campaign went on I did start to think that despite his obvious opportunism, he would at least be a good manager right? I’m not so sure about that anymore considering how disorganized his campaign’s ground game was and his flat footed response to a hostile media.

I felt really bad for McCain too, he was the first to be truly smeared by the media (poetic justice for the maverick) to prop up Obama, but my sympathy was misplaced because look at him now.

Makes me so sad that the campaign couldn’t make Romney look like a human like this does.

Showing this video to two people who I knew agree with me on about 70% of the issues but voted for Obama both said that it was totally the opposite of how they understood Romney to be – as in “cold, desolate, robotic.”

Wow, so far this thread amazes me. I expected the usual self-indulgence about never voting for a RINO again. Somebody better wake up the usual suspects who love to declare the GOP dead, yammer on about Whigs and tell us that the Great Conservative Pumpkin will rise again!

Look, Romney and Cruz on the same ticket is a decent idea. Obamacare is changing the conversation completely. Cruz is well known as utterly against Obamacare, and he’s what the base wants. Remember, Palin was what made McCain even close to Obama in the first place–the base voted for Palin, not McCain.

I’m pretty sure Romney has learned several lessons from the last campaign against Obama. For one, don’t trust the media.

That said, it won’t happen. Against Hillary, we are probably going to have to have a woman on board the ticket.

We could have had a DECENT man with INTEGRITY, proven experience, talent; a man who actually would have unified this nation, and who would have tackled the economy with skill and knowledge; a man who wouldn’t have lied to us every time he opened his mouth.

A real President, not this fake poseur who arouses disgust, hatred and poison wherever he goes, whatever he says. A man who has stolen BILLIONS from the public purse for his cronies, his arrogant lifestyle and his own benefit.

The trailer was painful to watch. I know I’ll want to see the documentary/movie, but I know I’ll be sick just watching it and contemplating the real measure of the hideous LOSS and the nightmarish PRICE we’re going to pay, and are paying every day for the past year.

The truth is, we probably did get Mitt Romney as our President; to this day I believe the Democrats committed electoral fraud to put Obama back in office. But as no one is willing to actually make that argument, I’m left with just my opinion and anecdotal evidence, and not much one can do with that.

I wish Mitt Romney would run again; but he won’t and I don’t blame him. So don’t encourage delusions.

I actually think Romney could do quite well–there’s got to be a ton of buyers remorse out there for Obama.

With Cruz or Lee on the ticket to get the base on board, that would be a decent strategy. It would take out Christie and Jeb most likely too.

You can say that Romney was a “flip flopper” all you want, but he was flipping to the conservative side, not away from it. Christie and Jeb don’t do that.

It’s an interesting scenario that won’t come to pass, most likely. But Romney could easily get up there and say, “See, the Republicans and I told you so. This was a mess we as a nation could have easily avoided!”

Wow, so far this thread amazes me. I expected the usual self-indulgence about never voting for a RINO again. Somebody better wake up the usual suspects who love to declare the GOP dead, yammer on about Whigs and tell us that the Great Conservative Pumpkin will rise again!

rhombus on December 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Amazes me, too – but for different reasons.

I was thinking someone needs to wake up all the people who saw RINO’s get whacked in the last few elections that *still* somehow think doing it again – much less for one that’s already been ruined by the media – is a good idea.

Oh, and the GOP will fight *next* time, really – whether it be a Congressional fight, or a milquetoast GOP presidential candidate standing up to the media and the the Dem candidate. /

God help us, as we seem incapable of learning from our mistakes and helping ourselves.

Two things. One, while I am not in love with Gov. Romney as a conservative, he has many talents, missing in the current jackwagon, that would be beneficial to the national. And I believe him to be an honest and honorable man. Second, the people having a voice inside the administration cannot be a bad thing. At this point, Sen. Cruz willing listens to the people.

You can say that Romney was a “flip flopper” all you want, but he was flipping to the conservative side, not away from it. Christie and Jeb don’t do that.

Vanceone on December 18, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Sorry, I can forgive some… but Romney lost because he couldn’t even articulate the most basic of conservative positions. I don’t trust him any more. He was just trying to suck the base in to vote for him like all the RINOs do. And as a manager, he couldn’t even keep his campaign manager on the same track as far as repealing Obamacare. He’s just a liberal RINO wrapped up in faux conservative talk.

He also suffered from one deplorable flaw… over the entire campaign he couldn’t understand that this is war, and the Democrats are the enemy. Running a business, you compete… but you don’t really have any equivalent to an enemy that wants to utterly destroy you, then scorch and salt the earth so that nothing will ever grow where you stood… leaving a barren wasteland where our party once stood. That is what the Democrats want to do to us, and Mitt couldn’t understand that… and was unprepared for it. In other words, he lacks experience with today’s political climate. Inexperience… thy name is Mitt.

Romney is far more human than Obama will ever be and would have ben a great president. It was just his biggest weakness was what I thought would be his strength, he ran a crap campaign. He let attacks linger too long, He ducked out of interviews that even while he knew they would be hostile he should have shown up for, seemed to have no idea how the advertising budget was being spent, etc.

Romney would have rescued Obamacare. He’s already said as much, and his party will no doubt rescue it anyway. Nothing interesting to see here.

rickv404

Um, yeah, no “So, as president, I will begin with an equally big dose of certainty across our economy: By granting waivers to all fifty states, I will start the process of repealing Obamacare on Day 1.”

dominigan: Yeah, I buy that Romney didn’t foresee a war. But don’t you think he would NOW? He’d be quite valuable for the next rodeo, since only him and McCain really know the dirty stuff that the rest of us don’t see. And McCain is in line to be Hillary’s running mate.

Romney isn’t perfect, but I’m pretty sure he’s learned his lesson. And he’d have a LOT of good on the ticket.

That said, I’d be happy with him at the VP slot to Cruz. Can you imagine Romney against whatever schlub Hillary has on the VP? There isn’t anything there in the Dem bench. Booker, maybe. Romney, as shown in the first debate, can bring it. He changed the entire race so much that the Media had to openly start cheating for Obama there, something that they didn’t do before. That Mitt would wipe the floor with whomever the Dems bring up.

Cruz is an excellent debater as well. I’d love a Cruz/Romney ticket. For one thing, if something happened to Cruz, we would have an excellent replacement, unlike Biden.

I don’t care what anybody says to me about my conservative bona fides. I liked the guy. And I would vote for him again (over Christie) if he decided to try a run. I saw him in person during the campaign and I felt then, as I do now, that here is a genuine person of character who can do a lot to not only manage government better than many, but who also could have a positive influence on the culture’s coarse discourse because he appears to be not a divisive person.

Bottom line is that we’d be having a whole different day today if Romney had been elected. We might not agree with every little bit of his leadership, but we would damned sure have a budget at the very least.

Bottom line is that we’d be having a whole different day today if Romney had been elected. We might not agree with every little bit of his leadership, but we would damned sure have a budget at the very least.

Murf76 on December 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM

But he lost…to freaky thug obama, who never won. He is president like Mugabe of Zimbabwe. It’s the last thing the media will report on, aside from the fact that obama is mentally clinically ill.

I think that’s right. And it didn’t help that his campaign organization was hostile to the tea party movement and alienated a lot of the grassroots support in key swing states.

Outlander on December 18, 2013 at 1:03 PM

That was just one part of it.

They knew of what happened in Benghazi, and said nothing, at all, in the name of PC and hyper-caution.

They knew of “if you like you can keep” it was all in the register, in the open, for good oppo-researchers to see/find…they did nothing throughout the campaign, not to speak of the debates and the last weeks/days…

But he lost…to freaky thug obama, who never won. He is president like Mugabe of Zimbabwe. It’s the last thing the media will report on, aside from the fact that obama is mentally clinically ill.

Schadenfreude on December 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Obama isn’t mentally ill and he isn’t a mass-murderer. Did you ever have days in college when you thought “what if my totally out-of-touchy leftist english professor who can quote Karl Marx from memory but can never find his car keys, was president?” Obama answers that question.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you don’t like him. Not really sure how you can say he fought with silky gloves and that he fought Republicans better than he fought Obama and also say that even Obama thought he had lost after that first debate. I do agree that he had a very inept campaign staff, though.

They knew of what happened in Benghazi, and said nothing, at all, in the name of PC and hyper-caution.

They knew of “if you like you can keep” it was all in the register, in the open, for good oppo-researchers to see/find…they did nothing throughout the campaign, not to speak of the debates and the last weeks/days…

There is so much more, alas.

Schadenfreude on December 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Romney backed down on Benghazi and shouldn’t have.

Here was Obama’s comment in the debate:

“And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do…”

And Romney did this mealy-mouthed “oh, I want to get your statement on the record!” thing which was silly. My response would have been: “Mr. President, if you don’t want people to suggest you’re playing politics, then don’t play politics. How else can you explain trying to blame these terror attacks on a Youtube video?”

As for ObamaCare, Romney was totally unable to talk about ObamaCare due to RomneyCare. He was literally the only Republican in America who had fingerprints on ObamaCare, and he was our nominee. So unfortunate.

I do think Romney had the intent to continually hit Obama on Benghazi in that second debate, but he was completely caught off guard with Candy Crowley inexplicably getting involved in the debate, which completely changed the debate. I think Romney had the edge at that point, but after something like that happens, it’s hard to recover when the moderator takes your opponent’s side on an issue. Crowley tried to redeem herself after the debate on CNN, but the damage had already been done.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Why not? Romney doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet (seriously– the roof riding dog was the worst anyone could find). I doubt Cruz has much, either. They both graduated from Elite schools, so the “They be dumb” charge won’t work. And with the Democratic party showing gross, gross, utter incompetence in governing, a “heartless technocrat” who no one can accuse of being incompetent wouldn’t be bad at all.

That is, as long as they get it together on the whole campaigning bit and fire Steve Schmidt. Get a REAL campaign staff together.

It is well documented on HA that he was not my preferred candidate, but that I voted for him. Compared to obama anyone, even Kucinich is better. No, Mitt is not Kucinich, for any weak-minded. He, the commie Kucinich, is just a more honest man than obama.

Not really sure how you can say he fought with silky gloves and that he fought Republicans better than he fought Obama

This is a proven fact, with myriad of exhibits. I don’t care to re-fight the 2012 run. You can go back into the threads, but I am resigned to what’s going on now, the land having shot herself into the head, twice. Such stupid people deserve what they voted for. Too bad we’re in it too.

and also say that even Obama thought he had lost after that first debate.

The new book, Game Change, by Halperin/Heilemann documents this well.

I do agree that he had a very inept campaign staff, though.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

There you go…they destroyed his opposition in the primaries, often thuggishly, when they needed the camps later, but then didn’t destroy the obama thugs and oafs, out of PC and too much caution.

I think Romney had the edge at that point, but after something like that happens, it’s hard to recover when the moderator takes your opponent’s side on an issue. Crowley tried to redeem herself after the debate on CNN, but the damage had already been done.

Obama isn’t mentally ill and he isn’t a mass-murderer. Did you ever have days in college when you thought “what if my totally out-of-touchy leftist english professor who can quote Karl Marx from memory but can never find his car keys, was president?” Obama answers that question.

In an interview shortly after the 2012 election, one of Romney’s sons (I forget which one since all of his sons seem to blend together in my mind’s eye), said his father really didn’t want to run for President in 2012 but when he (Mitt) looked at the second-stringers who comprised the potential GOP primary field, he felt the Republican Party needed a solid, competitive candidate to go against Obama. Romney ran for the office out of a sense of patriotic duty, not because he was burning with ambition.

In short, Mitt Romney really didn’t want the job. He didn’t have that ‘presidential worm in the belly’ Abraham Lincoln talked about.

Here’s the thing about winning the Presidency, at least in modern times: if you don’t want it, you don’t get it.

This is a proven fact, with myriad of exhibits. I don’t care to re-fight the 2012 run. You can go back into the threads, but I am resigned to what’s going on now, the land having shot herself into the head, twice. Such stupid people deserve what they voted for. Too bad we’re in it too.

I don’t remember any ads being tougher on fellow Republicans than they were on Obama. Maybe his ads in 2008, but I don’t remember any “tough” ads against Republicans in 2012.

The new book, Game Change, by Halperin/Heilemann documents this well.

I’m not disputing that Obama thought he had lost after the first debate. I think many people thought that. The reason why I brought that up is because you say that Romney fought him with silky gloves, but then also say that Obama had thought he had lost the first debate. The two don’t square. It’s hard for an opponent to think he had lost an election when he’s being fought with only silky gloves. Romney destroyed Obama in that first debate, as most people acknowledge, and he wasn’t wearing silky gloves.

There you go…they destroyed his opposition in the primaries, often thuggishly, when they needed the camps later, but then didn’t destroy the obama thugs and oafs, out of PC and too much caution.

Schadenfreude on December 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Where Romney was at his best was during the debates. All the campaigns ran good ads against each other, but the ads did nothing, in retrospect. Whenever Romney needed a win, his debate performance put him over the top. That’s exactly what happened in Florida when he needed to defeat Newt there. Romney knew he needed to beat Obama in the first debate, and as we’ve both already said, he not only beat him, he annihilated him. He was doing very well in that second debate too until Crowley decided to butt in. Also, I would just posit that running a Republican primary campaign is very different than running a general election campaign. Bush’s ads and whisper campaigns against McCain in the 2000 primary were much tougher/dirtier than anything his campaign did against Gore or Kerry.

Watching this guy try to hold it together while struggling with the weight of defeat, surrounded by his wife, kids, and grandkids, would melt the heart of anyone who doesn’t work at MSNBC. He seems … so lifelike. So incredibly lifelike.

So now, way too late, you finally get a clue about Romney? As I’ve been saying for the last 2 years we need better pundits. Romney did his job. He won Independents by 6 points. The election was lost by Romney’s conservative critics who failed to rally around the nominee. The next election will be lost as well if conservatives continue to kid themselves into believing that Barack Obama’s America is a centre right country.

This was a very memorable moment, but that didn’t actually happen during a debate (it was before the debate had actually started) and the moderator certainly wasn’t taking anyone’s side. He just didn’t want to give Reagan an opportunity to explain his decision. Being told by a moderator that your opponent is right and you’re wrong when the two are arguing is very different than this Reagan moment.

This was a scripted, prepared line. Reagan and his campaign (and everyone in America, for that matter) knew the age question was coming, so they had a great line prepared for it. As far as the Romney-Obama debate, I don’t think anyone in America anticipated the moderator taking a candidate’s side on an issue. No one could have prepared for that. In the future, hopefully candidates will.

I would have no problem voting for Romney again, should it come to that. Decent, capable man, so much better than many others. Would have been great for the country had he been elected. We need a competent uniter.

Um, yeah, no “So, as president, I will begin with an equally big dose of certainty across our economy: By granting waivers to all fifty states, I will start the process of repealing Obamacare on Day 1.”

Zaggs on December 18, 2013 at 12:42 PM

You left out all the times he said “repeal and replace”, which guess what – means something different than “repeal”. It means a national version of Romneycare – and whether it starts with ‘Obama’, ‘Romney’, or even ‘Reagan’ were someone to suggest it… No. F*ck No. The federal government does *not* belong in the equation. Period.

This was a scripted, prepared line. Reagan and his campaign (and everyone in America, for that matter) knew the age question was coming, so they had a great line prepared for it. As far as the Romney-Obama debate, I don’t think anyone in America anticipated the moderator taking a candidate’s side on an issue. No one could have prepared for that. In the future, hopefully candidates will.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Romney shouldn’t have backed down. The first response should have been to tell her she was factually wrong; the second is to call her out for inappropriately intruding into the debate by saying “the President shouldn’t need your help to explain why he blamed the Benghazi attacks on a Youtube video.” Newt Gingrich and Andrew Breitbart both showed that you can take the media head-on and win.

Romney shouldn’t have backed down. The first response should have been to tell her she was factually wrong; the second is to call her out for inappropriately intruding into the debate by saying “the President shouldn’t need your help to explain why he blamed the Benghazi attacks on a Youtube video.” Newt Gingrich and Andrew Breitbart both showed that you can take the media head-on and win.

Outlander on December 18, 2013 at 2:00 PM

You’re right that he shouldn’t have backed down. I was just saying that it’s a natural, human response that after you’ve been called out publicly as being wrong, you’re probably not going to press the issue further. And Newt is good at those sorts of things, but a huge reason why it works in primary debates is because the voters in the hall don’t stay quiet. Newt is one of those debaters who feeds off crowd. Watch him on “Crossfire” when you get a chance and he shows that he’s not nearly as good as people give him credit for. I mean Romney and Santorum killed him quite a number of times in the debates. When he went at John King, it absolutely worked because the crowd erupted. It wouldn’t be as effective in a general election where everyone is forced to stay quiet. It very well might have had the opposite effect.

I still think both of the last two campaigns were like a college basketball game when the three referees are clearly calling all the fouls on one team and letting the other one get away with everything. You can have the best team on the planet, but if the refs let the other guys kick, shove, pull, and hack you while they foul out your guys on touch fouls, you’re not going to win the game.

Hindsight being so much clearer, I think Mitt Romney made two fatal mistakes:

1) Signing Romneycare. He should have vetoed the bill, and let his veto be overridden. IMO, the more purist conservatives and the libertarians would have (reluctantly) turned out and voted for him as POTUS, if he had simply vetoed that one bill as governor.

2) Underestimating the truly despicable depths to which the left would go (smearing him and stuffing the ballot box, to name two). I think he was unprepared to fight ruthlessly against that. He needed an attack dog in his campaign to guide him there. Say what you want about Rove, he did what was needed to win for Bush. Letting Candy Crowley do what she did speaks to this, too. He was too civil, too restrained.

If he’d picked a man like Cruz as his VP instead of Paul Ryan, he might have received the attack dog guidance he’d have needed to win the election. Now, however, I think his time is passed. And besides, I doubt Ann will let him run again.

Well, except for when he and his campaign were sliming Gingrich with outright lies. Romney was the typical moderate GOP candidate: a lion against other Republicans, a lamb against the Democrats. Thus it will always be, and thus moderate GOP presidential candidates have “loser” baked in.

and sometime in December a national “crisis” that prevents the swearing in of the new members, blah blah. And boom, the only thing left is the 2nd Amendment.

You can be sure, if there were a national “crisis” huge enough to prevent swearing in the new members, it would be huge enough to affect everything else Bammy finds inconvenient to running the nation his way including the 2nd and all other Amendments, and the Constitution itself.

A huge obstacle would be all who take the 2nd Amendment especially to heart and can back it up.

Hot Air proposing that the man who did not want to win in 2012 as our standard bearer should be our standard bearer in 2016…
He does not want the job. If he runs again, he still will not want the job. The only thing he would be doing is prevent anyone else from being the Republican President of the United States of America.